1992-06-24_REVISION - M1988112 (2)

Home Browse Search

~~ i DRAFT Minutes, June 24-25, 1~2 8 Subiect To Board Approval ` It was MOVED that the Board adopt the Staff's recommendation, with a language change to the last paragraph making it read '...or if any leakage is detected from...", rather than ..."or any leakage from...", add an Item 4 stating that "t:he operator is to use all reasonably practicable measures to reduce the cyanide levels in the pond to levels as low as reasonably achievable and to continue to use its best efforts at all times to achieve tFcat goal and at any time the Staff or objectors believe that the operator is not attempting every step reasonably practicable, the matter will be brought back to the Board for further action, including civil penalties and further corrective actions orders", and add an Item 5 stating that "at the next Board Meeting, in addition to reporting generally on the status of this problem, the Staff will report to the Board on its belief as to whether further reduction below the 50 ppm level can be achieved, and, if so, provide a recommendation for further corrective action level(s) and schedule, while recognizing that the ultimate goal is to bring the tailings ponds into compliance with the permitted levels by October of 1992". SECONDED. The Board discussed suggestions for changing all the values to 35 or 40 ppm using WAD figures and change the date for achievement to the July 1992 Board Meeting. Staff asked the operator's experts if the method for determining WAD needed to be specified. Dr. Adrian Smith, a hydrogeochemist representing the operator, stated that a specific method for determining WAD cyanide levels should be adopted. He suggested that the Board adopt the APHA/AWWA 4500 Method C, included in the protocol document, for WAD cyanide determination. Dr. Hyatt suggested that the Board consider requiring the use of the total cyanide method at 40 ppm for analysis, rather than WAD. He said this method would be more reliable. It was MOVED that the Board adopt an Amendment to the Motion to retain Conditions 1, 2 and 3 of the Division's recommendation as submitted and with the language-change and, in regard to Condition 4, change the language to reflect that the Board set a target of 35 ppm in WAD to be achieved by July 20, 1992, using all reasonably practicable steps and include Condition 5 as stated in the original Motion. SECONDED AND PASSED 5 for (Kraeger-Rovey, Jouflas, Stewart, Danielson and Cattany); 1 against (Danni); Cooley not present for the vote. Staff stated that the Division would modify the recommendation to include the changes made by the Board. Mr. frank Johnson said that he would draft a Board Order. The Motion, as amended, PASSED 5 for (Kraeger-Rovey, Jouflas, Stewart, Danielson and Cattany); 1 against (Danni); Cooley not present for the vote. Ms. Jacquez requested that the (Board direct the Division to address the issue of independent monitoring by choosing one of the parties recommended for sampling and analysis and that the monitoring begin with the process to be initiated prior to the July Board Meeting.